[crazy][wrong] Who Killed Aaron Swartz was Re: 2022 resolutions
[partial, still trying to comprehend article] There was a big hullabaloo around the blatant national-scale corruption involved in the charging of Aaron Swartz and his suicide. Often in such hullabaloos people make a big stink that "the system is corrupt" without taking more pointed or decisive action on that situation. Although you might feel otherwise, if you look at the logical facts it is clear that Aaron Swartz did not commit a crime related to the data he downloaded. He just looked suspicious. He hid that he was downloading it, the way somebody might when they were committing a computer crime. And then somehow the lawyers prosecuting him were influenced to push as hard as they possibly could, when all Aaron ever did was fit a profile. Although there's a lot of information on what the people who harmed Aaron cared about, based on how they and others behaved, as a casual newbie to this stuff, I'm most curious on a document that makes it clearer who the prosecuting lawyers were, and what might indicate how they were influenced. These lawyers likely committed crimes themselves here, if it matters. On 12/28/21, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
Prosecution [Carmen Ortiz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz) [Stephen Heymann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Heymann)
Two prosecutors, each with a wiki article on them.
Citation(s) [1:11-cr-10260](https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.mad.137971)
Court membership Judge(s) sitting Nathaniel M. Gorton
writer, political organizer and [Internet activist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism), was prosecuted for
A bit ago somebody shared a document on this list indicating they had participated in the oppression and framing of hacktivists.
multiple violations of the [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act) of 1986 (CFAA), after downloading academic journal articles through the MIT computer network from a source ([JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR)) for which he had an account as a Harvard research fellow. Facing trial and the
The article is written in a way such that it is not clear to a casual reader that Aaron committed no crimes to any normal analysis. The sources of the edit of sentences that do not state foremost that Aaron was innocent of any crime by any precedent set prior to the trial, could add some information.
possibility of imprisonment, Swartz committed suicide, and the case was consequently dismissed.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Landergan-2)[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-DocketAlarm-3)
Information on the forensic details of Swartz's suicide could also help people trying to figure out what is true here.
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by [MIT Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology_Police_D...) on state breaking-and-entering charges, in connection with the systematic downloading of [academic journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal) articles from [JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR).[4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-gerstein-4)[5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-IncidentReport-5)[6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-hak-6)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-2011-tech-7)
The police incident report is linked here. This could help people feel they have more evidence. My personal experience is that police incident reports can be written to protect parties, but it is still nice to have.
Federal prosecutors eventually charged him with two counts of [wire
When and by whom? I think it mentions later.
On January 11, 2013, two years after his initial arrest, Swartz was found dead in his [Brooklyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn) apartment, where he had hanged himself.[10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-BusinessInsider-10)[11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-autogenerated1-11)[12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Time-12)
Citations regarding the hanging. One might mention forensic details.
[JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) is a digital repository that archives − and disseminates online − manuscripts, GIS systems, scanned plant specimens and content from [academic journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal) articles.[13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-ithaka-13) Swartz was a [research fellow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_fellow) at [Harvard University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University), which provided him with a JSTOR account. Visitors to MIT's "open campus" were authorized to access JSTOR through its network.[14](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-14)
Note again that it is at the _very end_ that it mentions that access to JSTOR was authorized, and it does not clearly state the fact that Swartz was authorized to access JSTOR, rather implying it. These kinds of expressions are _how_ things like this happen. Talk to a police officer or a prosecutor: their job is already to fight crime. They don't hear the things that imply that the person is innocent unless you state it clearly. They hear the things that indicate what they need to do to stop them. It's already assumed that you are only talking to them because the person in question committed a crime.
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus[6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-hak-6)[22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-22) by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in [Cambridge District Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_District_Court) on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.[4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-gerstein-4)[5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-IncidentReport-5)[18](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-cohen-18)[23](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-23)
January 6, 2011 -- Swartz is arrested by MIT police and a US Secret Service agent and charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Citations regarding the wrongfully-placed charges could help in forming an outline of how they developed.
On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in federal District Court on four felony counts: [wire fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud), [computer fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_fraud), unlawfully obtaining information from a [protected computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_computer) and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-2011-tech-7)[24](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-TechTimeline-24)[25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Internet_Activist_Charged_in_Data_Theft-25)
July 11, 2011 - Swartz's first indictment on false charges, look like general "hacking" charges to my newbie eyes. Federal District Court. Citations regarding the indictments, similarly.
On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network.[26](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-26)[27](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-MassDA-27)
Nov 17, 2011 - Second indictment, one real charge, and at least one severe false charge. Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury.
On December 16, 2011, the district attorney's office filed a [nolle prosequi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolle_prosequi) declaration in the case generated by Swartz's initial January 6, 2011 arrest.[5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-IncidentRepo...)
Dec 16, 2011 - A meaningful legal filing, I'm guessing regarding the first indictments, I'm very much not a lawyer.
The state charges against Swartz stemming from the November 17, 2011 indictment were dropped on March 8, 2012.[28](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-StateDrop-28) The state charges were dropped due to a deal being reached in which the data was returned by Swartz. [28](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-StateDrop-28)
March 8, 2012 - Grand jury charges are dropped. Citation regards deal with Swartz.
A report later submitted to the president of MIT about the Swartz case suggests, however, that Massachusetts state law required the Middlesex district attorney to dismiss the charges after the Boston U.S. Attorneys' Office and the Secret Service failed to promptly hand over evidence requested by Swartz's attorney during the Massachusetts case's discovery process.[29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-MIT_Presiden...)
It's pretty clear the proceedings were not about what is legal or what is true, but rather about what somebody could convince people to do, and how people were able to resist that.
lawyers familiar with the original case told him they had expected it to be dismissed after a "'continuance without a finding' ... The charge [would be] held in abeyance ... without any verdict ... for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years."[30](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Silverglate-...)
Don't let a lawyer just tell you this. Get them to actively work to make things better and more certain. The people prosecuting Aaron were not just waiting for the system to run its course, but rather continually taking action to influence Aaron being indicted. Aaron's defense needs to similarly be on its toes.
According to [Verge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Verge) reporter Jeff Blagdon[32](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Blagdon-32) and the Huffington Post,[33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Grim-33) federal rather than local prosecutors had been "calling the shots" on the prosecution of the case since Swartz's arrest. Both cited a letter from Swartz's attorneys to the Department of Justice.[34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-p4Peters-34)
Letter from Swartz's attorneys to the Department of Justice indicates that _federal_-level prosecutors were running the show. Citation regarding letter.
The lead prosecutor in Mr. Swartz's [federal] case, AUSA Stephen Heymann
Lead Prosecutor AUSA Stephen Heymann
... and [Secret Service] Agent Pickett directed and controlled the
Secret Service Agent Pickett These people are likely not solely responsible for this, but they sound pretty important if they were spearheading this particular effort. Why did this happen? Who asked them to do it?
investigation of Mr. Swartz from the time of [his] arrest on January 6 ... Heymann's involvement in the case had commenced very early in the investigation.[34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-p4Peters-34)
Stephen Heymann and Agent Pickett directed and controlled the investigation of Mr Swartz from January 6 ... [citation]
Federal prosecution
On April 13, 2011, as part of their investigation, federal authorities interviewed Swartz's former partner, [Wired](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_(magazine)) journalist [Quinn Norton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Norton); she penned an article, "Life Inside the Aaron Swartz Investigation," detailing her experiences in the case.[35](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Quinn-35)[36](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-36)
I mentioned ... a two-year-old public post on ... Aaron's blog. It had been fairly widely picked up by other blogs. I couldn't imagine that these people who had just claimed to have read everything I'd ever written had never looked at their target's blog, which appeared in his FBI file, or searched for what he thought about "open access." They hadn't. So this is where I was profoundly foolish. I told them about the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. And in doing so, Aaron would explain to me later (and reporters would confirm), I made everything worse.[35](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Quinn-35)
On July 19, 2011, the July 11th federal indictment[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-2011-tech-7)[24](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-TechTimeline-24) was unsealed, charging Swartz with two counts of fraud and two counts related to accessing and damaging a protected computer.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Internet_Activist_Charged_in_Data_Theft-25) According to the indictment, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which ran a script named "keepgrabbing.py",[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-2011-tech-7) allowing him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR."[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[37](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-CB1-37) Prosecutors in the case said Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on [P2P file-sharing sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer_file_sharing).[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-lindsay-15)
Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleading not guilty on all counts, and was released on $100,000 unsecured [bail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail).[38](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-NewYorkTimesOpinion1-38) After his arrest, JSTOR released a statement saying that though it considered Swartz's access to be a "significant misuse" committed in an "unauthorized fashion," it would not pursue civil litigation against him;[16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-jstor-statement-16)[38](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-NewYorkTimesOpinion1-38) MIT did not comment on the proceedings.[39](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-lessig-obitu...)
The New York Times wrote of the case: "a respected Harvard researcher who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles that he was entitled to get free."[38](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-NewYorkTimes...) [The Awl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awl) similarly commented that "Swartz is being charged with hacker crimes, not copyright-infringement crimes, because he didn't actually distribute any documents, plus JSTOR didn't even want him prosecuted."[40](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-awl-40)
Assistant U.S. Attorneys [Stephen Heymann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Heymann) and Scott Garland were the lead prosecutors, working under the supervision of U.S. Attorney [Carmen Ortiz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz).[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndictment-1)[17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-HuffPost_20130112-17)[41](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Wired_20130113-41) The case was brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 to enhance the government's ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.[42](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-42)[43](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-crln-43) "If convicted on these charges," said Ortiz, "Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million."[9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-SwartzAaronP...)
On September 12, 2012, the prosecution filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts.[8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Superced-8)[44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-techdirt-44) [George Washington University Law School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_University_Law_School) Professor [Orin Kerr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr), writing on the legal blog [Volokh Conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volokh_Conspiracy), opined that the risk of a maximum sentence in Swartz's case was not high.[45](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Kerr2-45) In an interview with Boston's [WBUR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBUR), retired federal judge [Nancy Gertner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Gertner) said a sentence of 35 years for a case like Swartz's "never occurs." She questioned the propriety of pressing these charges at all. Referring to decision-making by Ortiz's office, she said "this is the example of bad judgment I saw too often," suggesting that a two-year diversion program leading to expunged charges would have been more fitting.[46](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-46)
Plea negotiations
Swartz's attorney, [Elliot Peters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Peters), stated that prosecutors at one point offered a plea deal of four months in prison and pleading guilty to 13 charges, and warned that if Swartz rejected the deal, future deals would be less attractive;[47](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-47) and that two days before Swartz's death, that "Swartz would have to spend six months in prison and plead guilty to 13 charges if he wanted to avoid going to trial."[48](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-AP_20130114-...) Under the six-month deal, after Swartz pled guilty to the 13 charges, the government would have argued for a six-month sentence, and Swartz would have argued for a lesser sentence; the judge would then be free to assign whatever sentence the judge thought appropriate, up to six months.[49](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-49) Peters later filed a complaint with the DOJ's [Office of Professional Responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Professional_Responsibility), stating that if Swartz didn't plead guilty, Heymann "threatened that he would seek for Mr. Swartz to serve seven years in prison," a difference in duration Peters asserts went "far beyond" the disparity encouraged by the [plea-bargain portion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_responsibility) of the [Federal Sentencing Guidelines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines).[34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-p4Peters-34)
Andy Good, Swartz's initial lawyer, told [The Boston Globe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Globe): "I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk. His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we'll lock him up.' I'm not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I'm saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless."[50](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-cullen-50)
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. "JSTOR signed off on it," he said, "but MIT would not."[50](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-cullen-50)
Two days before his death, JSTOR announced on January 9, 2013 that it would make "more than 4.5 million articles" available to the public free of charge. The "Register & Read" service, in beta for the previous 10 months, was capped at three articles every two weeks (78 per year), readable online only, with some downloadable for a fee.[51](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-LibraryJournal-51)[52](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JSTOR_RaR-52)
After his death, Ortiz's office dismissed the charges against Swartz.[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Landergan-2)[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-DocketAlarm-3) She said, "This office's conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case ... This office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct—a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting ... At no time did this office ever seek—or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek—maximum penalties under the law."[53](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-53)[54](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Ortiz2013-54)
On January 12, 2013, [Alex Stamos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Stamos), a [computer forensics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics) investigator employed by the Swartz legal defense team, posted an online summary of the [expert testimony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness) he had been prepared to present in the JSTOR case, had Swartz lived to see trial. He wrote:
If I had taken the stand as planned and had been asked by the prosecutor whether Aaron's actions were "wrong," I would probably have replied that what Aaron did would better be described as "inconsiderate." In the same way it is inconsiderate ... to check out every book at the library needed for a History 101 paper. It is inconsiderate to download lots of files on shared wifi ...[55](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-55)
Federal prosecutory rationale and responses
U.S. Attorney Ortiz asserted after the 2011 indictment that "stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim, whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."[9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-SwartzAaronPR-9)[40](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-awl-40)
About the prosecution
At a January 24, 2013 memorial for Swartz, [Carl Malamud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Malamud) recalled their work with PACER. He noted that they had brought millions of U.S. District Court records out from behind PACER's "pay wall" and found them full of privacy violations.
We sent our results to the Chief Judges of 31 District Courts ... They redacted those documents and they yelled at the lawyers that filed them ... The Judicial Conference changed their privacy rules.
... [To] the bureaucrats who ran the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ... we were thieves ...
So they called the FBI ... [The FBI] found nothing wrong ...
"Was the overly aggressive posture of the Department of Justice prosecutors and law enforcement officials," he asked, "revenge because they were embarrassed that — in their view at least — we somehow got away with something in the PACER incident? Was the merciless JSTOR prosecution the revenge of embarrassed bureaucrats because they looked stupid in the New York Times, because the U.S. Senate called them on the carpet?"[56](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Mercy-56)
Former [Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Richard_Nixon) [White House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) counsel [John Dean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean) wrote an article on the legal blog justia.com entitled "Dealing with Aaron Swartz in the Nixonian Tradition: Overzealous Overcharging Leads to a Tragic Result", saying "these are not people who are conscientiously and fairly upholding our federal laws. Rather, they are typically authoritarian personalities who get their jollies from shamelessly beating up on unfortunate people like Aaron Swartz."[57](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-57)
[George Washington University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_University) law professor [Orin Kerr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr) wrote on January 15, 2013 that "the charges brought here were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged."[58](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-58)[59](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-59) [Duke University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University_School_of_Law) law professor [James Boyle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boyle_(academic)) replied in The Huffington Post: "I think that in [Kerr's] descriptions of the facts [and of] the issues surrounding prosecutorial discretion ... he tends ... to minimize or ignore facts that might put [Swartz] in a more favorable light."[60](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-60)
In response to a piece by Larissa MacFarquhar in the [New Yorker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker), retired journalist Jane Scholz objected to what she perceived as an effort "to turn Swartz into a hero for facing government prosecution after hacking the JSTOR archive", arguing that "Swartz was apparently familiar with laws protecting proprietary-information-management systems, so he should not have been surprised by the severity of the prosecution's response to his crime. It is a crime, and not a victimless one. I am a retired journalist; during my working years, my salary depended, and today my pension relies, on people paying for copyrighted content. In recent years, as the business that supports journalism has declined, thousands of journalists have lost pay, benefits, and, ultimately, their jobs. [ ... ] I find it ironic that Swartz made several million dollars selling the rights to his own copyrighted programming to Conde Nast. Swartz's is a sad story, but it's not a heroic one." Law professor Mike Maddison commented on Scholz's letter: "it is difficult to find a better example of the glib equation of 'my career isn't the success that it once was' and 'somebody committed a crime' that infects contemporary dialogues about IP rights."[61](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-61)
[David Aaronovitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Aaronovitch) noted in [The Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) that JSTOR was itself a "product of philanthropy" but that it had to charge access fees so that it could pay [academic publishers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publisher) for rights to their publications. He decried the "reckless" behavior of a generation which "cannot be persuaded—yet—that copyright matters".[62](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-62)
In contrast, [Peter Ludlow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ludlow) in [The Chronicle of Higher Education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education) argued that due to the [publish or perish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish) nature of academia and the importance that journals' reputations have, "[w]hen an academic signs away copyright to an academic publisher, it amounts to a 'contract of adhesion'—meaning a contract in which one party has all the power and it was not freely bargained" and that "like the original authors, JSTOR had to negotiate its licensing agreements from a position of weakness", which Ludlow illustrated with a bargaining agreement from JSTOR's history, which stipulated that the publishers "be compensated if there was a loss to their (minimal) sales of rights to older materials, and they demanded compensation even before JSTOR covered its own expenses". Ludlow concluded that "Until academics get their acts together and start using new modes of publication, we need to recognize that actions like Aaron Swartz's civil disobedience are legitimate."[63](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-63)
Rob Weir, who describes himself as an "associate editor of a very small journal", writes in [Inside Higher Ed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Higher_Ed) that "Many wonder why money accrues to those whose only 'creation' is to aggregate the labor of others, especially when some form of taxpayer money underwrote many of the articles. That's a legitimate concern, but defending Swartz's method elevates vigilantism above the rules of law and reason." While he concedes that "JSTOR charges university libraries a king's ransom for its services", he also argues that "even a modest journal is expensive to produce" and that "if you want anyone to read your journal, you'll give it to JSTOR or some other aggregator. Unless, of course, you can drum up lots of free advertising". He concludes that the "[information wants to be free](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free)" adage fails to account for the "hidden costs within the culture of free", and proposes that "[there ain't no such thing as a free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch)" is the appropriate summary of production costs in the [Information Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age), which he transmutes to "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" for "hackers and info thieves".[64](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-64)
[Tim Wu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu), writing in [The New Yorker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker), called out what he perceived as lack of proportionality, writing that "The act was harmless — [ ... ] meaning that there was no actual physical harm, nor actual economic harm. The leak was found and plugged; JSTOR suffered no actual economic loss. It did not press charges. Like a pie in the face, Swartz's act was annoying to its victim, but of no lasting consequence."[65](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-65) Wu went on to compare Swartz's act with that of [Steve Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs) and [Steve Wozniak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak), who, according to Wu, "in the nineteen-seventies, committed crimes similar to, but more economically damaging than, Swartz's. Those two men hacked AT&T's telephone system to make free long-distance calls, and actually sold the illegal devices ([blue boxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box)) to make cash. Their mentor, [John Draper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper), did go to jail for a few months (where he wrote one of the world's first word processors), but Jobs and Wozniak were never prosecuted. Instead, they got bored of [phreaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking) and built a computer. The great ones almost always operate at the edge" writes Wu, in support of this thesis that "We can rightly judge a society by how it treats its eccentrics and deviant geniuses—and by that measure, we have utterly failed [in the case of Swartz]."[66](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-66)
About the law
After Boyle's Huffington Post column, Kerr returned to the topic, advocating reform of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) under which Swartz was prosecuted. "The problem raised by the Swartz case is ... [that] felony liability under the statute is triggered much too easily. The law needs to draw a distinction between low-level crimes and more serious crimes, and current law does so poorly ..."[67](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-OK-67)
[Chris Soghoian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Soghoian), a technology policy analyst at the [American Civil Liberties Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union), argued similarly, "Existing laws don't recognise the distinction between two types of computer crimes: malicious crimes committed for profit ... and cases where hackers break into systems to prove their skillfulness or spread information that they think should be available to the public."[68](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-stuff1-68) [Jennifer Granick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Granick), Director of Civil Liberties at the [Stanford Center for Internet and Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Center_for_Internet_and_Society), both defended Swartz and challenged the scope of the law under which he was prosecuted.[69](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-69)[70](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-70)
Law professor [Stephen L. Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Carter) agrees that the prosecution of Swartz was ridiculous, but also lays the blame on Congress for creating a new type of federal felony roughly every week.[71](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-71) Carter considers that the CFAA is a good example of this phenomenon. He writes: "Enacted in the 1980s, before the Internet explosion, the statute makes a criminal of anyone who 'intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access' and, in the process, obtains financial information, government information or 'information from any protected computer.'" Carter then gives the following example: "You're sitting in your office, when suddenly you remember that you forgot to pay your Visa bill. You take a moment to log on to your bank account, and you pay the bill. Then you go back to work. If your employer has a policy prohibiting personal use of office computers, then you have exceeded your authorized access; since you went to your bank website, you have obtained financial information. Believe it or not, you're now a felon. The likelihood of prosecution might be small, but you've still committed a crime." Carter further writes that the problem with the statute was well-known, and that "some federal courts have given the statute's language a narrow construction, but others have read it broadly, and the [Obama administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_administration) has opposed efforts in Congress to narrow its scope. [Alex Kozinski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski), chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, warned in an opinion last spring [of 2012] the government's position 'would make criminals of large groups of people who would have little reason to suspect they are committing a federal crime.'"[72](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-72)
In 2013, [Zoe Lofgren](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Lofgren) and [Ron Wyden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden) have advanced a legislative proposal called "[Aaron's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron%27s_Law)" to amend the CFAA in order to eliminate the aforementioned vagueness and also eliminate the "redundant provisions that enable a person to be punished multiple times ... for the same crime".[73](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-RonZoe-73) In an opinion piece for Wired magazine, they wrote that "This is, in fact, what happened to Aaron Swartz — more than a third of the charges in the superseding indictment against him were under this redundant CFAA provision."[73](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-RonZoe-73)
Reactions, complaints and post-dismissal motions
See also: [Aaron Swartz § Aftermath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Aftermath)
Speaking at his son's funeral, Robert Swartz said, "[Aaron] was killed by the government, and MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."[74](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-guy-74) [Mitch Kapor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Kapor) posted the statement on [Twitter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter).[75](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-75) Carmen Ortiz's husband, IBM executive Tom Dolan, replied through his own Twitter feed, @TomJDolan, "Truly incredible that in their own son's obit they blame others for his death and make no mention of the 6 month offer."[76](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Guard-76) In [Esquire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_(magazine)), [Charlie Pierce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Pierce) wrote that "the glibness with which her husband and her defenders toss off a 'mere' six months in federal prison, low-security or not, is a further indication that something is seriously out of whack with the way our prosecutors think these days."[77](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-77)
Contacted by [The Guardian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian), Ortiz's spokesperson had "no comment" to make on the matter;[76](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Guard-76) [Reuters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters) reported being unable to contact Dolan.[78](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-ReutersMSN-7...) On January 16, 2013, Ortiz released an official statement, in which she reiterated that "I must, however, make clear that this office's conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case," and that her subordinates "took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably."[78](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-ReutersMSN-7...)
On January 28, 2013, the lawyers for Swartz's estate sent a letter to the Justice Department accusing Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann of professional misconduct.[33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Grim-33)[79](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Castillo-79) They said Heymann "may have misrepresented to the Court the extent of the federal government's [early] involvement in the investigation."[80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Jeralyn-80)
Emails and reports further illustrated ... that AUSA Heymann was himself involved in the investigation even before Mr. Swartz was arrested on January 6, 2011.[34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-p4Peters-34)
The lawyers also said Heymann "abused his discretion when he attempted to coerce" Swartz into pleading guilty:[33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Grim-33)[79](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Castillo-79)[80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Jeralyn-80)
Swartz ... naturally felt extreme pressure to waive his rights ... The difference between an offer of four months and a threat of seven years went far beyond the minimal reduction ... that should properly have applied for [a defendant's] "acceptance of responsibility" under the Sentencing Guidelines.[34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-p4Peters-34)[80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Jeralyn-80)
On March 15, the lawyers asked the federal court to modify the protective order on Swartz's file to permit public disclosure of the discovery materials, including the names and titles of MIT, JSTOR and law enforcement employees. The lawyers said that withholding the names would make the documents "less intelligible and thus far less useful to Congress."[81](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Anderson-81) The First Assistant U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Jack Pirozzolo, said he was taking a role in the discussions and would be asking the court to give the affected employees an opportunity to be heard on the proposed disclosures.[81](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Anderson-81)
The Department of Justice sought to redact the names of the prosecutors involved in the case. On April 3, 2013, a U.S. Attorney's Office spokesperson said, "Our argument against it is that not only does it have an effect on the people involved in the case, but there's also sometimes a residual effect." The Attorney's Office reported threats and hacking attempts against prosecutors already known to be involved: "threatening emails" received by Ortiz and Heymann, the hacking of Heymann's [Facebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) account and that "Heymann's father, a Harvard professor, received a postcard with his photo in a guillotine".[82](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Smith-82) The postcard and some email excerpts were published by [Wired](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_(magazine)) magazine.[83](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-83)
On May 13, 2013, the court granted the estate's motion in part, permitting public disclosure of much of the material the estate's lawyers had sought to have unsealed, provided that the names of MIT and government employees were first redacted. The estate's argument for disclosure of these names was "substantially outweighed by the interest of the government and the victims in shielding their employees from potential retaliation," wrote Judge Nathaniel Gorton.[84](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Mullin-84) The judge also ruled that information disclosing details of computer network security at MIT should not be made public.[84](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Mullin-84) The prosecutors and Swartz's lawyers were ordered to propose the terms of the disclosures and redactions by May 27, 2013.[84](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-Mullin-84)
[Kevin Poulsen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Poulsen) filed a [FOIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)) lawsuit and in November 2013 obtained the release of 130 pages from the file that the [US Secret Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service) has on Swartz, out of approximately 20,000 pages that the agency has in relation to Swartz.[85](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-85)
Of Heymann, [BuzzFeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed) has noted: "Back in 2008, young hacker [Jonathan James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James) killed himself in the midst of a federal investigation led by the same prosecutor."[86](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-86)
In January 2013, [WikiLeaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks) claimed through its Twitter account that Swartz had been in contact with [Julian Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange) through 2010 and 2011, and that Swartz may have been a source of leaked materials.[87](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-87) If true, this would offer an explanation as to why charges against Swartz were pursued by the federal government despite JSTOR dropping charges and urging that the government and MIT do the same.[88](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-88)
Notes
[^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#ref_quantity_downloade...) The MIT network administration office told MIT police that "approximately 70 gigabytes of data had been downloaded, 98% of which was from JSTOR."[5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-IncidentRepo...) The first federal indictment alleged "approximately 4.8 million articles ... 1.7 million [of which] were made available by independent publishers for purchase through JSTOR's Publisher Sales Service."[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-JulyFedIndic...) The superseding indictment characterized the amount as "a major portion of the total archive in which JSTOR had invested ... " removing the estimates.[89](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#cite_note-89)
See also
- [Academic journal publishing reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal_publishing_reform)
References
-
- [July 2011 Initial Federal Indictment of Aaron Swartz](http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/217115/20110719-schwartz.pdf). Posted by [New York Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times), 19 July 2011. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
-
- Landergan, Katherine (2013-01-14). ["US District Court drops charges against Aaron Swartz - MIT - Your Campus"](http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/mit/2013/01/us_district_court_drops_ch...). Boston.com. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
-
- United States v. Swartz, [1:11-cr-10260](https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--11-cr-1026...), 106 ([D. Mass.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_...) filed Jan. 14, 2013).
-
- Gerstein, Josh (July 22, 2011). ["MIT also pressing charges against hacking suspect"](https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2011/07/mit-also-pressing-cha...). Politico. Swartz['s] alleged use of MIT facilities and Web connections to access the JSTOR database … resulted in two state felony charges for breaking into a 'depository' and breaking & entering in the daytime, according to local prosecutors.
-
- Commonwealth v. Swartz, [Nos. 11-52CR73 & 11-52CR75](http://mitcrimeclub.org/SwartzFilings-state.pdf), MIT Police Incident Report ([Mass. Dist. Ct.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_District_Court) dismissed Dec. 16, 2011) ("MIT's IS&T Department … explained that they were able to determine that this laptop was illegally downloading…. IS&T had put an approximate value on the downloaded information at $50,000.… The suspect … was arrested for two counts of Breaking and Entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony.").
-
- Hak, Susana; Paz, Gabriella (January 26, 2011). ["Compilation of December 15, 2010–January 20, 2011"](http://mitcrimeclub.org/11pologDec15Jan20.pdf) (PDF). Hak–De Paz Police Log Compilations. MIT Crime Club. p. 6. Jan. 6, 2:20 p.m., Aaron Swartz, was arrested at 24 Lee Street as a suspect for breaking and entering….
-
- Kirschbaum, Connor (August 3, 2011). ["Swartz indicted for JSTOR theft"](http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html). [The Tech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tech_(newspaper)). [Massachusetts Institute of Technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology). Retrieved January 12, 2013.
-
- ["September 2012 Superseding Federal Indictment of Aaron Swartz"](https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf) (PDF). wired.com. 2012-09-12. Retrieved 2013-05-20.
-
- US Attorney's Office District of Massachusetts (July 19, 2011). ["Alleged Hacker Charged With Stealing Over Four Million Documents from MIT Network"](https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/ne...). Press release. Archived from [the original](https://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html) on May 26, 2012. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
-
- [Thomas, Owen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Thomas_(writer)) (January 12, 2013). ["Family of Aaron Swartz Blames MIT, Prosecutors For His Death"](http://www.businessinsider.com/statement-family-aaron-swartz-2013-1). [Business Insider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider). Retrieved January 12, 2013.
-
- ["Aaron Swartz, internet freedom activist, dies aged 26"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21001452). BBC News. January 13, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-13.
-
- ["Aaron Swartz, Tech Prodigy and Internet Activist, Is Dead at 26"](http://business.time.com/2013/01/13/tech-prodigy-and-internet-activist-aaron...). Time. January 13, 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
-
- ["Terms and Conditions of Use"](https://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp). JSTOR. New York: ITHAKA. January 15, 2013. JSTOR's integrated digital platform is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to … scholarly materials: journal issues …; manuscripts and monographs; …; spatial/geographic information systems data; plant specimens; …
-
- [Granick, Jennifer, Towards Learning from Losing Aaron Swartz: Part 2, The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School blog, 15 January 2013.](http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-losing-aaron-swar...) Retrieved 26 January 2013.
-
- Lindsay, Jay (July 19, 2011). ["Feds: Harvard fellow hacked millions of papers"](https://news.yahoo.com/feds-harvard-fellow-hacked-millions-papers-203301454....). Boston. Associated Press. Retrieved 2013-01-15.
-
- ["JSTOR Statement: Misuse Incident and Criminal Case"](http://about.jstor.org/news/jstor-statement-misuse-incident-and-criminal-cas...). JSTOR. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
-
- Carter, Zach; Grim, Ryan; Reilly, Ryan J (January 12, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz, Internet Pioneer, Found Dead Amid Prosecutor 'Bullying' In Unconventional Case"](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/aaron-swartz_n_2463726.html). Huffington Post.
-
- Cohen, Noam (January 20, 2013). ["How M.I.T. ensnared a hacker, bucking a freewheeling culture"](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/technology/how-mit-ensnared-a-hacker-buck...). The New York Times. p. A1. 'Suspect is seen on camera entering network closet' [in an unlocked building].… Within a mile of MIT … he was stopped by an MIT police captain and [U.S. Secret Service agent] Pickett.
-
- Peters, Justin (February 7, 2013). ["The Idealist: Aaron Swartz wanted to save the world. Why couldn't he save himself?"](https://web.archive.org/web/20130210170319/http://www.slate.com/articles/tec...). Slate. N.Y.C. 6. Archived from [the original](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/02/aaron_swartz_he_...) on February 10, 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013. The superseding indictment … claimed that Swartz had 'contrived to break into a restricted-access wiring closet at MIT.' But the closet door had been unlocked—and remained unlocked even after the university and authorities were aware that someone had been in there trying to access the school's network.
-
- [Larissa MacFarquhar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_MacFarquhar) (March 11, 2013). ["Requiem for a dream: The tragedy of Aaron Swartz"](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/11/130311fa_fact_macfarquhar). The New Yorker. [Swartz] wrote a script that instructed his computer to download articles continuously, something that was forbidden by JSTOR's terms of service.… He spoofed the computer's address…. This happened several times. MIT traced the requests to his laptop, which he had hidden in an unlocked closet.
-
- Merritt, Jeralyn (January 14, 2013). ["MIT to conduct internal probe on its role in Aaron Swartz case"](http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/1/14/51325/7871/crimenews/MIT-to-Conduct-...). TalkLeft (blog). Att'y Jeralyn Merritt. The wiring closet was not locked and was accessible to the public. If you look at the pictures supplied by the Government, you can see graffiti on one wall.
-
- [Lipinski, Pearle and Joseph Maurer, Police Log (12/19-2/5)](http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N6/polog.html), [The Tech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tech_(newspaper)), 18 February 2011 (Volume 131, Issue 6). Retrieved 24 January 2011.
-
- Singel, Ryan (February 27, 2011). ["Rogue academic downloader busted by MIT webcam stakeout, arrest report says"](https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/mit-webcam-swartz/). Wired. N.Y.C. Swartz is accused … of stealing the articles by attaching a laptop directly to a network switch in … a 'restricted' room, though neither the police report nor the indictment [mentions] a door lock or signage indicating the room is off-limits.
-
- Kao, Joanna [The Tech’s coverage of Aaron Swartz](http://techblogs.mit.edu/news/2013/01/the-techs-coverage-of-aaron-swartz/) [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20171031182652/http://techblogs.mit.edu/news/201...) 2017-10-31 at the [Wayback Machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine) [The Tech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tech_(newspaper)), 12 January 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013
-
- Bilton, Nick (July 19, 2011). ["Internet Activist Charged in Data Theft"](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data...). Boston: Bits Blog, The New York Times Company. Retrieved July 19, 2011.
-
- Hawkinson, John (November 18, 2011). ["Swartz indicted for breaking and entering"](http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N53/swartz.html). The Tech. MIT. p. 11. Swartz … was indicted … in Middlesex Superior Court … for breaking and entering, larceny over $250, and unauthorized access to a computer network.
-
- ["Cambridge man indicted on breaking & entering charges, larceny charges in connection with data theft"](http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1655830732/Reddit-co-founder-indi...) (Press release). Middlesex District Attorney. November 17, 2011. Swartz … was indicted today on charges of Breaking and Entering with Intent to Commit a Felony, Larceny over $250, and Unauthorized Access to a Computer Network by a Middlesex Superior Grand Jury.
-
- Hawkinson, John [State drops charges against Swartz; federal charges remain](http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N12/swartz.html) [The Tech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tech_(newspaper)), 16 March 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
-
- Harold Abelson, Peter A. Diamond, Andrew Grosso, and Douglas W. Pfeiffer (July 26, 2013). [Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz](http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf) (PDF) (Report). p. 36. Retrieved June 6, 2017. After the state indictment, Martin Weinberg filed demands for discovery. In state prosecutions that involve joint investigations with outside law enforcement agencies or foreign jurisdictions, Massachusetts state law governing criminal discovery requires that the District Attorney obtain from those agencies and jurisdictions certain evidence that may be relevant to the case. Some of this evidence was in the sole possession of the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Secret Service. Mr. Weinberg demanded this material as discovery from the DA's Office, and the USAO refused to produce it to that office. As a result, the DA's Office could not comply with the Massachusetts discovery laws so as to continue its prosecution, and it dismissed its charges.
-
- Silverglate, Harvey (January 23, 2013). ["The Swartz suicide and the sick culture of the DOJ"](https://web.archive.org/web/20130129065612/http://masslawyersweekly.com/2013...). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Archived from [the original](http://masslawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/the-swartz-suicide-and-the-sick-cult...) on January 29, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
-
- [McCullagh, Declan, Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565927-38/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until...), [cnet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNET), 25 January 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
-
- Blagdon, Jeff (March 14, 2013). ["US Attorney's Office accused of deliberately withholding evidence in Aaron Swartz trial"](https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/14/4102792/us-attorneys-office-accused-of-wi...). The Verge. Vox Media. Swartz's laptop … w[as] seized by the Cambridge Police Department on January 6th, 2011, when Swartz was first arrested ... Heymann had an email proving that the US Attorney's Office, ... not the Cambridge Police Department, was calling the shots on the search and seizure.
-
- Grim, Ryan; Reilly, Ryan (March 14, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz lawyers accuse prosecutor Stephen Heymann of misconduct"](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/aaron-swartz-prosecutorial-miscondu...). Huffington Post. The handling of the case has already stunted the career of U.S. Attorney … Ortiz, who has become politically toxic and is no longer discussed seriously as a contender for judicial vacancies.
-
- Peters, Elliot; Daniel Purcell (January 28, 2013). ["Re: United States v. Aaron Swartz"](https://www.scribd.com/doc/130344110/Aaron-Swartz-Lawyers-Accuse-Prosecutor-...). Letter to Robin Ashton, Counsel, US Dept of Justice. Keker & Van Nest LLP. The [federal prosecutors] remarkably suggest … the Cambridge Police Department, not the Secret Service, was in possession of the computer equipment…. The Secret Service was plainly in charge of the investigation at MIT.
-
- Norton, Quinn (March 3, 2013). ["Life inside the Aaron Swartz investigation"](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/life-inside-the-aaron...). The Atlantic. D.C. Retrieved 2013-03-08.
-
- Madrigal, Alexis (March 3, 2013). ["Editor's note to Quinn Norton's account of the Aaron Swartz investigation"](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/editors-note-to-quinn...). The Atlantic. D.C. Retrieved 2013-03-08.
-
- Lundin, Leigh (July 31, 2011). ["The Thief Who Stole Knowledge"](http://criminalbrief.com/?p=17625). Computer Crimes. Criminal Brief.
-
- Schwartz, John (July 19, 2011). ["Open-Access advocate is arrested for huge download"](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html). The New York Times.
-
- Lessig, Lawrence (January 12, 2013). ["Prosecutor as bully"](https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully). Retrieved January 12, 2013.
-
- [Was Aaron Swartz Stealing? - The Awl](http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing)
-
- Poulsen, Kevin (January 12, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz, Coder and Activist, Dead at 26"](https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/). Wired.
-
- McCool, Grant (July 30, 2012). ["Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: The 1980s-Era Hacking Law Out Of Step With Today's Internet, Analysts Say"](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/computer-fraud-and-abuse-act_n_1716...). Huff Post Tech. Reuters. Retrieved 2013-01-17.
-
- Sims, Nancy (October 2011). ["Library licensing and criminal law: The Aaron Swartz case"](http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full). [College & Research Libraries News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_%26_Research_Libraries_News). Association of College and Research Libraries. 72 (9): 534–37. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier)):[10.5860/crln.72.9.8637](https://doi.org/10.5860%2Fcrln.72.9.8637). [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_(identifier)) [0099-0086](https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0099-0086). Retrieved January 13, 2013.
-
- ["US Government Ups Felony Count in JSTOR/Aaron Swartz Case From Four To Thirteen"](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-fel...). Tech dirt. 2012-09-17. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
-
- Orin Kerr (January 16, 2013). ["The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion"](http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-p...). Retrieved January 16, 2013.
-
- Boeri, David. ["Retired Federal Judge Joins Criticism Over Handling Of Swartz Case"](http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swartz). WBUR. Retrieved 17 May 2013. This is the example of bad judgment I saw too often." When asked if she was referring to the bad judgement of Carmen Ortiz, Gertner responded, "That's right.
-
- Daly, Michael (15 January 2013). ["Aaron Swartz's Unbending Prosecutors Insisted on Prison Time"](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/aaron-swartz-s-unbending-pr...). The Daily Beast. Retrieved 6 January 2017.
-
- Lavoie, Denise (January 14, 2013). ["Mass. lawyer: told federal prosecutors Swartz suicidal"](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/feds-dismiss-charges-against-swartz-cite-suic...). Associated Press. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20130116223709/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fe...) from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved 2013-02-08.
-
- [Orin Kerr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr) (16 January 2013). ["The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion)"](http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-...). [The Volokh Conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Volokh_Conspiracy). Retrieved 6 January 2017.
-
- Cullen, Kevin (January 15, 2013). ["On humanity, a big failure in Aaron Swartz case"](http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3t...). Boston Globe. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20130117062007/http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013...) from the original on January 17, 2013.
-
- Schwartz, Meredith (January 9, 2013). ["Many JSTOR Journal Archives Now Free to Public"](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112012740/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013...). [Library Journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Journal). Archived from [the original](http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/01/academic-libraries/many-jstor-journal-a...) on January 12, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
-
- ["Register & Read"](http://about.jstor.org/rr). About. [JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR). Retrieved January 14, 2013.
-
- Laura Smith-Spark (January 17, 2013). ["Prosecutor defends case against Aaron Swartz"](http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/tech/aaron-swartz-death/). CNN. Retrieved January 17, 2013.
-
- [Ortiz, Carmen M.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz) (Jan 16, 2013). ["Statement of United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz Regarding The Death of Aaron Swartz"](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/557005-statement-of-us-attorney-orti...). US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. Retrieved Jan 17, 2013.
-
- Stamos, Alex (January 12, 2013). ["The truth about Aaron Swartz's "crime""](http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/). Unhandled Exception. The government provided no evidence that these downloads caused a negative effect on JSTOR or MIT, except due to silly overreactions such as turning off all of MIT's JSTOR access due to downloads from a pretty easily identified user agent.
-
- Malamud, Carl (January 24, 2013). ["Aaron's Army"](https://public.resource.org/aaron/army/index.html). Speech at Memorial for Aaron Swartz. Public.Resource.Org. [T]he bureaucrats who ran the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts … called the FBI…. They found nothing wrong.
-
- ["Dealing With Aaron Swartz in the Nixonian Tradition: Overzealous Overcharging Leads to a Tragic Result"](http://verdict.justia.com/2013/01/25/dealing-with-aaron-swartz-in-the-nixoni...). verdict.justia.com. January 25, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-26.
-
- Lauerman, John (January 15, 2013). ["MIT's embrace of Web freedom clashes with hacking case"](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/mit-s-embrace-of-web-freedom-clash...). Bloomberg. N.Y.C.
-
- Kerr, Orin (January 14, 2013). ["The criminal charges against Aaron Swartz (Part 1: The law)"](http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/). The Volokh Conspiracy. Eugene Volokh.
-
- Boyle, James (January 18, 2013). ["The Prosecution of Aaron Swartz: A reply to Orin Kerr"](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyle/prosecution-aaron-swartz_b_2508242...). Huffington Post.
-
- [Copyright Crime: The Legacy of Aaron Swartz | madisonian.net](http://madisonian.net/2013/03/23/copyright-crime-the-legacy-of-aaron-swartz/)
-
- Aaronovitch, David (January 17, 2013). ["Even if everything's free, there can be a price: The death of hacker Aaron Swartz reveals a young generation unaware of its own great power–or responsibilities"](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article365...). The Times. p. 23. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
-
- [Aaron Swartz Was Right - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education](https://chronicle.com/article/Aaron-Swartz-Was-Right/137425/)
-
- [Essay argues that Aaron Swartz was wrong | Inside Higher Ed](http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/01/22/essay-argues-aaron-swartz-was...)
-
- [Will Aaron Swartz's suicide spark copyright reform? - The Week](http://theweek.com/article/index/238778/will-aaron-swartzs-suicide-spark-cop...)
-
- [How the Legal System Failed Aaron Swartz-and Us : The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/everyone-interesting-...)
-
- Kerr, Oren, [Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples](http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/27/aarons-law-drafting-the-best-limits-of-the-...) [Volokh Conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Volokh_Conspiracy), 27 January 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
-
- Wagner, Daniel; Verena Dobnik (January 13, 2013). ["Swartz' death fuels debate over computer crime"](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/swartz-death-fuels-debate-over-computer-crime). Associated Press. JSTOR's attorney, Mary Jo White — formerly the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan — had called the lead Boston prosecutor in the case and asked him to drop it, said Peters.
-
- ["Towards Learning from Losing Aaron Swartz: Part 2"](http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-losing-aaron-swar...). Cyberlaw.stanford.edu. January 15, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
-
- ["With the CFAA, Law and Justice Are Not The Same: A Response to Orin Kerr"](http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/cfaa-law-and-justice-are-not-same-...). Cyberlaw.stanford.edu. 2013-01-14. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
-
- [CBA National Magazine - Copyright and "I'm right to nuke you" ethics](http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Blog/January_2013/Copyright_and_I_m_right_to_...)
-
- ["The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz"](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/the-overzealous-prosecution-of-aar...). Bloomberg.
-
- Lofgren, Zoe and Ron Wyden, ["Introducing Aaron's Law, a Desperately Needed Reform of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act"](https://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/), Wired, 20 June 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
-
- Guy, Sandra (January 15, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz was 'killed by government,' father says at funeral"](http://www.suntimes.com/business/17594002-420/aaron-swartz-memorialized-at-s...). Chicago Sun-Times.
-
- [Murphey, Shelly, US attorney's husband stirs Twitter storm on Swartz case](http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/16/attorney-husband-causes-backlash-twi...), [The Boston Globe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Globe), 16 January 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
-
- [Aaron Swartz: husband of prosecutor criticises internet activist's family | Technology | theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/15/aaron-swartz-husband-pros...)
-
- Pierce, Charles P. (January 17, 2013). ["Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz"](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/aaron-swartz-case-011713), [Esquire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_(magazine)). Retrieved January 18, 2013.
-
- ["Prosecutor defends her actions after Aaron Swartz suicide"](https://web.archive.org/web/20131213183321/http://news.msn.com/science-techn...). Archived from [the original](https://news.msn.com/science-technology/prosecutor-defends-her-actions-after...) on 2013-12-13. Retrieved 2013-12-10.
-
- Castillo, Michael (March 14, 2003). ["J'accuse! Aaron Swartz's lawyers fight prosecutors with document dump"](http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2013/03/14/aaron-swartz-lawye...). Upstart Business Journal.
-
- Merritt, Jeralyn (March 13, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz lawyers seek misconduct review against prosecutor"](http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/13/21474/4122/misconduct/Aaron-Swartz-L...). TalkLeft (blog). Att'y Jeralyn Merritt.
-
- Anderson, Derek (March 16, 2013). ["Swartz estate seeks release of documents: Papers are under protective order"](http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/15/aaron-swartz-defense-estate-files-mo...). Boston Globe. p. B2. Pirozzolo … has become involved in the Swartz case.
-
- Smith, Erin (April 3, 2013). ["U.S. attorney: Keep names out of Aaron Swartz case"](http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/us_attorney_keep...). Boston Herald. Threatening emails have been sent to … Ortiz and … Heymann.
-
- Kravets, David (April 2, 2013). ["Aaron Swartz's Prosecutors Were Threatened and Hacked, DOJ Says"](https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/swartz-prosecutors-threatened). Wired.
-
- Mullin, Joe [Aaron Swartz prosecutors will unseal evidence, but won’t name names](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/aaron-swartz-prosecutors-must-un...) 13 May 2013, [arstechnica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arstechnica). Retrieved 26 May 2013.
-
- Poulsen, Kevin (November 7, 2013). ["Secret Service Report Noted Aaron Swartz's 'Depression Problems'"](https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/11/swartz-foia-november/). Wired.
-
- ["Internet Activist's Prosecutor Linked to Another Hacker's Death"](https://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/internet-activists-prosecutor-linke...). [BuzzFeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed).
-
- ["WikiLeaks claims Aaron Swartz was an ally and possible source, breaking anonymity"](https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3893268/wikileaks-tweets-aaron-swartz-was...). 19 January 2013.
-
- ["Aaron Swartz Case: US DOJ Drops All Pending Charges Against The JSTOR Liberator, Days After His Suicide"](https://www.ibtimes.com/aaron-swartz-case-us-doj-drops-all-pending-charges-a...). [International Business Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times). 15 January 2013.
-
- ["Superseding Indictment, USA v. Swartz, 1:11-cr-10260, No. 53 (D.Mass. Sep. 12, 2012)"](https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--11-cr-1026...). Docketalarm.com. 2012-09-12. Retrieved 2013-01-23..
External links
- [Case Docket: USA v. Swartz](https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.mad.137971)
- ["Overview"](http://docs.jstor.org/). JSTOR Evidence in United States vs. Aaron Swartz. [JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) [open access publication – free to read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access). July 30, 2013. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20130923020057/http://docs.jstor.org/) from the original on September 23, 2013.
- ["Summary of Events"](http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html). JSTOR Evidence in United States vs. Aaron Swartz. [JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) [open access publication – free to read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access). July 30, 2013. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20130921064511/http://docs.jstor.org/summary.htm...) from the original on September 21, 2013.
- ["Documents"](http://docs.jstor.org/documents.html). JSTOR Evidence in United States vs. Aaron Swartz. [JSTOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR) [open access publication – free to read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access). July 30, 2013. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20130815222515/http://docs.jstor.org/documents.h...) from the original on August 15, 2013.. Over 300 subpoenaed documents available for download. - [Guerilla Open Access Manifesto](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 10:40 AM, Victim of Undiscussed Horrifically Abusive Brainwashing <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
... I'm most curious on a document that makes it clearer who the prosecuting lawyers were, and what might indicate how they were influenced.
These lawyers likely committed crimes themselves here, if it matters.
Carmen Ortiz also oversaw the targeted assassination of a US citizen on US soil. they used a staged "police dog attack/defense" to justify the hail of bullets that killed him (and the dog, you shitheels...) you could try and get those docs out from under seal? https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/orchestratedexitevi... good luck :P
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022, 10:32 PM coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 10:40 AM, Victim of Undiscussed Horrifically Abusive Brainwashing <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
... I'm most curious on a document that makes it clearer who the prosecuting lawyers were, and what might indicate how they were influenced.
These lawyers likely committed crimes themselves here, if it matters.
Carmen Ortiz also oversaw the targeted
still comprehending who carmen ortiz is, are you able to state it clearly and concisely? assassination of a US citizen on US soil. they used a staged "police dog
attack/defense" to justify the hail of bullets that killed him (and the dog, you shitheels...)
you could try and get those docs out from under seal?
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/orchestratedexitevi...
good luck :P
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 3, 2022 11:25 AM, k <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
...
still comprehending who carmen ortiz is, are you able to state it clearly and concisely?
she's the prosecutor who demanded felony charges be brought against Aaron, regardless of circumstances. https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ In Biden’s Nomination of Marty Walsh, Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Gets Her Final Comeuppance Carmen Ortiz, a one-time rising star, went from “Bostonian of the Year” to the political wilderness. [Martin Gottesfeld](https://theintercept.com/staff/martin-gottesfeld/) [Martin Gottesfeld](https://theintercept.com/staff/martin-gottesfeld/) February 15 2021, 6:07 a.m. The last time Joe Biden was in the White House, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh seemed an unlikely nominee for a future labor secretary. Carmen Ortiz, President Barack Obama’s U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, had Walsh in her crosshairs. One summer dawn in 2016 she sent FBI agents to arrest two of his staff under a federal racketeering indictment. The Boston Globe, New England’s most powerful news outlet, known for its [coverage](https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/boston-globe-1) of the Roman Catholic Church child abuse scandals, laid siege to the mayor’s office over his labor practices and union ties. The Globe had [named](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2011/12/30/carmenortiz/wLwkSgFqDQgRZY0iEKk4kM/st...) Ortiz its 2011 “Bostonian of the Year.” Its reporters dug their foxholes wherever she pointed, and the paper cheered on her prosecution of Walsh’s staffers. When “Top Chef” had filmed in Boston two years earlier, Walsh visited on set with the show’s host Padma Lakshmi. Outside, the Teamsters picketed for union jobs. Ortiz indicted them, also for racketeering extortion. And in a city obsessed with haute cuisine, Ortiz leveraged star power: At trial, Lakshmi would take the stand for the prosecution. In Boston, Ortiz was considered a rising star and was expected to run for mayor herself, a task made easier by softening Walsh up. Hey, this is Boston. If you want finesse, watch a Bruins game; if you want blood, watch a City Council race. She was regularly talked of as a top-tier statewide candidate. The only question was whether she was destined for attorney general, the Senate, the governor’s mansion, or beyond. Fortunately for Walsh, by then Ortiz had lost strong allies and upset powerful enemies. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., passed away after championing Ortiz for her U.S. attorney role. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who toiled beside Ortiz in their early days at the Justice Department, had returned to the private sector, dogged by a high-profile Ortiz prosecution gone wrong. A humbler U.S. attorney might’ve noticed the ground shifting beneath her and tempered her ambitions. Ortiz instead stubbornly brought on her own downfall. Under Biden, her loss would become Walsh’s gain. Between Kennedy’s funeral and Holder’s exile, Ortiz and her then-chief of cybercrime, Stephen Heymann, indicted internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz on 14 felony counts for allegedly downloading too many academic journal articles. Swartz had used a simple script to download academic journal articles from the platform JSTOR, which provided its articles free to anyone on the MIT network. It’s not clear Swartz even violated the company’s terms of service; finding a crime anywhere in what he did took an awfully creative prosecutor. An expert defense witness[who never got to testify](https://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/)about MIT’s site license for JSTOR for “unlimited” use of the JSTOR library containing the articles would have made the conviction that much more difficult. The articles themselves were produced at taxpayer expense but then paywalled to limit taxpayer access. Neither MIT, where Swartz registered his laptop for the downloads, nor JSTOR wanted to press charges. And Swartz was well known for his work on the RSS standard, helping seed RECAP (now CourtListener), as well as for the credits he’d earned as a co-founder of DemandProgress, Creative Commons, and Reddit. Those facts seemed immaterial to Ortiz, who told the press after the July 2011 indictment: “Stealing is stealing,” she said, “whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars.” Swartz likely intended to republish the articles for free, and Ortiz made sure that would never happen. She and Heymann pushed for a maximum federal prison sentence of 35 years. Looking to avoid a trial, Heymann [compared Swartz to a rapist](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-heymann-aaron-swartz_n_3685191). By refusing to plead guilty, the line went, Swartz had “revictimized” MIT. Swartz fervently resisted, but Ortiz and Heymann had a trump card. [BOSTON , MA - DECEMBER 21: United States Attorney for Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz is stepping down. She gives interviews to local media. (Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)] Attorney Carmen Ortiz gives an interview to local media in Boston on Dec. 21, 2016. Photo: Jonathan Wiggs/Boston Globe via Getty Images The Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton is well known to the Massachusetts Bar, whose members whisper he rarely meets an indictment he doesn’t like. He’s noted as a hanging judge; prosecutors[go out of their way](https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2019/04/12/the-controversial-massac...) to get high-profile cases assigned to him. A legacy admission from the Gorton’s Seafood family to Dartmouth and then Columbia Law School, he was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush after Bush campaigned beside his brother Sen. Slade Gorton. After Swartz drew Gorton, his defense lawyers told Heymann the pressure of the case had rendered Swartz suicidal, his attorney[later said](https://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/amp/aaron_swartz_case_us_attorney...) he told prosecutors. “Fine, we’ll lock him up,” Heymann[responded](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/aaron-swartz-prosecut...). Swartz killed himself shortly thereafter, in January 2013. Within days of Swartz’s death, over 61,000 people digitally signed a White House[petition](https://www.law360.com/articles/609533/obama-won-t-can-attys-who-prosecuted-...) to fire Ortiz — a singular distinction for a U.S. attorney. The Senate and House judiciary committees pilloried her. Ortiz [told the media](https://www.wgbh.org/news/2016/12/22/local-news/carmen-ortiz-triumphs-contro...) that she and Heymann hadn’t known Swartz was on the brink of suicide and that if they had known, things might’ve been different. (Heymann’s knowledge only surfaced much later, along with his “Fine, we’ll lock him up” response.) Ultimately Obama [refused to sack Ortiz](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/12/swar-j12.html). She in turn refused to sack Heymann, though she did pick a new chief of cybercrime. Obama thus allowed Ortiz to save face, but she never recovered politically. Try as she might, it all went downhill for her from there, eventually culminating with Biden nominating Walsh for labor secretary. Outside the Boston Globe and Ortiz’s few remaining allies, the racketeering charges against Walsh’s staff garnered Ortiz all the wrong attention. Merriam-Webster defines a racketeer as “a person who obtains money by an illegal enterprise usually involving intimidation.” But Ortiz never accused Walsh or his staff of pocketing anything for themselves, or for his campaign, or for his administration. The indictment instead alleged that Walsh’s staff required a producer to hire local union stagehands for an outdoor rock concert. That’s business as usual for many in the heavily unionized capital of America’s bluest state. “Is this illegal now?” [mused](https://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/06/30/timothy-sullivan-boston-city-hall-us-... Boston anchor Jon Keller. Legality aside, requiring experienced stagehands familiar with the particular outdoor venue was arguably a prudent public safety measure. A few years earlier, an outdoor stage collapsed during a Sugarland show in Indiana, [killing seven](https://casetext.com/case/estate-of-vandam-v-daniels). A much deadlier incident eight years before that hit closer to Boston. One hundred people perished in smoke and flames in nearby West Warwick, Rhode Island, when a nightclub named The Station burned to the ground; over 200 were injured. The blaze started when the manager of a rock band [ignited indoor stage pyrotechnics](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/308/43/2491073/). Yet when Walsh’s office insisted on better-vetted stagehands, Ortiz tried to make a federal case out of it. In July 2016, the Huffington Post headlined [a hard-hitting feature](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/carmen-ortiz-us-attorney-marty-walsh-prosecut... Ortiz with “This Federal Prosecutor Is Building a Career Indicting the Good Guys.” Therein a chorus of prominent members of Ortiz’s own party denounced her. Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner, for example, labeled Ortiz’s indictment of Walsh’s staff an “abuse of power.” Martha Coakley, the former Massachusetts attorney general, also publicly challenged Ortiz. “What is the focus of this?” she asked. “And not only what are you choosing to investigate and indict, but how are you handling that process in terms of your obligations as prosecutors — and fairness?” For Ortiz, however, the worse had yet to come. The negative coverage eventually led her allies at the Boston Globe to [muse in print](https://web.archive.org/web/20170128050444/http:/www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...), “Why is Carmen Ortiz Being Cast as a Revengeful Cruella de Vil?” By December 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals seemed to have had enough. During the lame-duck months of the Obama administration, the high court [threw out](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20161219065)what had been Ortiz’s signature case — the one, more than any other, that made her Bostonian of the Year; it was another thin case that turned the regular operation of government into a crime. Ortiz announced her resignation the next day, though there was no escaping the court’s tongue-lashing that she’d overstepped her bounds prosecuting government workers for conduct that wasn’t criminal. The ruling foreshadowed similar problems for her cases against the Teamsters and Walsh’s staff. Those cases would continue for years after Ortiz left office. Ortiz, however, had more immediate concerns. She had to find a job outside government. The Senate was no longer in the cards. At or near the top of Ortiz’s list was Harvard Kennedy School. Philip Heymann, Ortiz’s mentor and the father of her former cybercrime chief, was a longtime Harvard professor. And of course the school is named after the family of her late supporter, Theodore E. Kennedy. Harvard nonetheless [rejected](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/15/carmen-ortiz-and-kennedy-school.... It turns out Swartz was a Harvard research fellow at the time of his arrest. And Ortiz had indicted a close political ally of a key school administrator. Thankfully for Ortiz, she had a safety school. Her first new gig outside government was as a visiting professor at the Boston College Law School. This too was curious because as U.S. attorney Ortiz had controversially [raided a prized audio archive](https://www.wgbh.org/news/post/carmen-ortiz-spotlight-under-fire)housed at Boston College containing candid interviews with Irish Republican Army members. In order to coax cooperation for the sake of history, the interviewees were promised the recordings would remain private as long as they were still alive. Shortly after Ortiz raided it, former militant Dolours Price, who had contributed an interview, was found dead from a drug cocktail. After her semester at Boston College, Ortiz joined the small Boston firm Anderson & Kreiger LLP, where she had connections from her time in government. It wasn’t exactly the big-firm board seat or political campaign one might expect of a former U.S. attorney. The Boston Globe, ever supportive, billed it as a “[coup](https://www3.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/09/05/former-attorney-carmen-ortiz-joins-boston-law-firm/0B9SIzKLhLdAh0jD9NcyqJ/story.html?arc404=true)” for the small firm. Perhaps, but Ortiz’s slide into political irrelevance had begun. A while later, Padma Lakshmi failed to fully convince a Boston jury. All four Teamsters tried were acquitted. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at first threw out the separate case against Walsh’s staff. It required a trip to the U.S. Court of Appeals before it made it to trial. The second time around Sorokin deep-sixed it[beyond any likely reinstatement](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-brissette-4). He[ruled](https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/02/12/boston-calling-shakedown-convictions... the aides hadn’t received anything of benefit, so couldn’t be charged with anything. Now Biden has driven the final nail into Ortiz’s political coffin by nominating Walsh for labor secretary despite Ortiz’s indictments — or perhaps to signal his loyalty to union organizers, he nominated Walsh because of her indictments. Either way, Ortiz is now the former prosecutor who is linked to the suicide of a once-in-a-generation talent and who fought Biden’s labor secretary nominee over his labor practices and lost. Not exactly where one wants to start a Democratic primary or confirmation hearing.
participants (3)
-
coderman -
k -
Victim of Undiscussed Horrifically Abusive Brainwashing